Cutting taxes on the rich doesn't help the economy, and raising taxes on the rich doesn't hurt it

In fact, keeping it high helps the economy. If taxes on the rich are low, then the higher-ups of companies have no reason not to raid the accounts for a fat salary + bonus. If the taxes are high, then taking a huge income makes no sense, and so the money gets left in the company, which helps it grow and prosper and maybe even, dare I say it, hire more workers.

People want to see random strangers hanged in the streets for witchcraft.

Fixed.

Early adopters have to put up with the problems of an immature platform? Say it isn't so!

You just grow your fuel plants on land that food farms don't use. Algae farms are perfect for this.

If it was cost effective to install greener technology and produce less carbon today, companies would do it and save money.

Uh, that's the problem, bright bulb. It's more "cost effective" -- which is to say, short-term, and just for the polluter -- to dump all your pollution in everyone's air/water/land and let everyone else deal with the fallout. These things are an attempt to internalize those externalized costs.

That so many people, even here on Slashdot, seem not to understand this simple concept is, frankly, saddening.

I'm sorry, but buying credits from a company that doesn't produce as much carbon emission as the government says it can is in no way actually helping the environment. It's a ponzi scheme. You produce the same amount of carbon, THEY produce the same amount of carbon

You seem to think that the company doing the buying won't do anything to try to lower that carbon emission so they don't have to pay. Is money not a motivator in your little world?

Besides, you're concentrating on the compliance-market version of "carbon offsets" -- more properly known as carbon credits. I'm talking about the voluntary market, where the money goes to green technology, alternative energy research, sequestration, and so on.

LASER printers. They have a high initial cost but low-priced ink

Ink for laser printers is indeed very cheap, especially since they do their actual printing using toner.

Be very very careful on this.

I tried one of these "systems" (read: hacked-together kludges) a few years ago, and found out the hard way that these are problematic. You end up with hoses that kink or get caught by the fast-moving and surprisingly powerful print head mechanism, spilled ink, printer hatches that no longer close properly, and many other drawbacks.

I just wish some manufacturer made a printer with this design inherent to it.

I'm hoping the current leadership is/will be smart enough to put some kind of clever legal strictures in place that ties the hands of whoever may run the company after them in such a way as to enforce the "don't be evil" ethic.

I'm so sick of this meme.

Papal indulgences were charging money for a paper that says "well, that's ok, never mind" from the Pope.

Carbon offsets are money to fund programs that actually help the environment (with luck, help enough to undo what harm you did in the first place, or even more).

One is about meaningless bullshit. The other is about actual, real-world, physical fixes to actual, real-world, physical problems. Like, involving chemicals and engineering and stuff.

There is a difference, Al-Gore-phobes, and making this false analogy only makes you look stupid.

the SunYungMoon group during the 1980's ("Moonies")

N.B.: the Moonies were not limited to the 1980s. They are still around and going strong, most notably in the form of the Washington Times, which some persist in mistaking for a real newspaper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times

When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.

Why the backpedal? If government is inherently bad, then it can't be needed at all.

Unless, that is, somewhere deep down, you do realize that statement is ludicrous. If we can use government to maintain civilization, then we can use it to improve daily life, prevent injustice, and all the other stuff that would make things better.

In short, when your computer is infected with malware, the solution is not to just stop using computers, it's to clean the computer up.

*Sigh*. Guess I didn't make my post over-the-top enough to trigger the "he's joking" circuit.

the real distinction I've come to draw between software and hardware RAID is a matter of performance and feature set. If said boxes give the same or better performance (I/Ops and throughput) to a workload as a dedicated, internal storage system managed by something like my 9650SE, then hell..... who cares, right?

The whole point of doing software RAID is that you are no longer bound to a proprietary disk format set by the controller manufacturer. When your hardware RAID controller fails, you better have an exact duplicate already bought, because you have no guarantee the manufacturer even makes that one anymore (or is even in business anymore). When the software RAID machine's motherboard (or drive controller) fails, you just get whatever new one you want, because your software will be the same and the drive interfaces will be the same.